Comment · Tue, July 25, 2023 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Independent Lab Testing Results Of Supplements On The Market
Original post in this thread
MisterYouAreSoDumb · 402 points
Hey everyone, it's been a while since I have made a post in this sub. However, I saw a new research study today that I wanted to bring up. It highlights why my main mission over the past 10 years has been to not only advance the lab testing and quality control standards of the industry, but also to educate consumers on what to look out for, and how things work in the background. We are all ingesting these products! We are putting them into our bodies, so it's crucial that companies selling them do everything necessary to ensure they are what they claim to be, and are pure and free from contaminants. That is unfortunately the vast exception to the rule. Many of you may remember my post about turkesterone results from last year.
That whole situation blew way up, and every jabroni on YouTube was making videos about it. Some were saying I was a liar and fraud, and just trying to sell products. Some were saying I was in for massive lawsuits. Most were just doing it to get their 5 m…
What they were answering
TengokuNoHashi · 2 points
Also, do you have any thoughts on A brand called Jigsaw Health? They are apparently known for their magnesium supplements and SRT tech, they have other stuff like b vitamins and much more but mainly was interested in their magnesium and b vitamin products. Thanks in advance I'm sure you're busy :)
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
They are here in the Phoenix metro area like us. My wife was actually suggested Jigsaw Health for some stuff by her trainer, I think? She came home and asked me, and I just laughed. Take a look at this page.
https://www.jigsawhealth.com/collections/magnesium-products/products/best-pure-magnesium
First off, that's not a 3rd party COA. They made that piece of shit themselves. They are also not allowed to use the ISO logo like that, and there are rules about including the ISO accreditation number on it. There is no number there, and no way for you to verify it's real. There is nothing there to tell you the lab that did it at all. Nobody signed the COA. ICP is a methodology, not a method. I assume they mean ICP-MS. However, it could be ICP-OES. We have no idea, because they didn't state it. Also, that methodology doesn't test for magnesium malate. It just tests for magnesium itself. You could put magnesium oxide in a capsule at 125mg and it would pass this test. It's not an appropriate methodology to assay magnesium malate. Also, it's 125mg exactly? Come on... What are the machine detection limits? I seriously doubt it's real at all.
Here is the produce I think you are referring to: https://www.jigsawhealth.com/collections/magnesium-products/products/best-magnesium-magsrt
The "COA" for it: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0286/5666/4654/files/magnesium-wsrt-lab-results_-_Lot_2208006.pdf?v=1674678816
Okay, let's just quote them on it...
https://www.jigsawhealth.com/pages/elemental-magnesium
Since dimagnesium malate is 19% elemental magnesium, we use a whopping 658mg per tablet to get 125mg of elemental magnesium per tablet.
Look at their COA. It doesn't say what was tested. Was it a capsule? Was it a serving? There's literally zero info on that garbage of a COA. Then let's just do some simple math. Their "COA" says they found 550mg of magnesium and 1,439mg of malic acid. I assume that is per serving. Well if you add the magnesium and malic acid up, that's 1,989mg. 550 divided by 1,989 is 27.6%. They literally just said it was 19% elemental magnesium, yet now their own COA on the site contradicts that? This happens all the time. Brands use cheap supplier for things, and they are not really fully chelated versions of those magnesiums. You can just mix magnesium oxide with malic acid and then claim it is magnesium malate. We have actually discovered that most of the supposed magnesium taurate on the market is only like 60%. The rest is other random salts and magnesium oxide to boost up the magnesium number. Nobody is properly testing anything, so nobody calls them out on it. Then look at this COA in the method section. You have one listed as ICP again. Then another listed as "internal." LOL, okay... Then you have two listed as AOAC. That just stands for Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. We are members of the AOAC. They do have methods, but you have to list the method number for it to mean anything. Then you have "J. Chrom." listed for the malic acid test? WTF is that? Are they referencing the Journal of Chromatography in general? So in the "method" section of ingredient analysis, they have half a methodology reference, a reference to an association, and a reference to a scientific journal, but no actual methods. Then you look down below at the heavy metals testing, and it says AOAC as well. That should be the same as the magnesium above, which says ICP. However, this one just says AOAC. Why? Then look at the microbial. That lists USPC61/62. That's US Pharmacopeia chapter 61 and 62. That's the first actual method listed. CMMEF stands for the Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods. I'm okay listing it like that, since it is a basic coliforms test. Just a jumbled mess of a "COA" in my opinion.
Now I have not personally tested any of their products, so I can't comment on the quality directly. Those are just my comments on their claims, site, and COAs. If you want to read more on the issue with dimagnesium malate, I will link the ESFA panel conclusion on it.
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5292
The Panel noted that the manufacturing process described for DMM does not demonstrate that the synthesis of DMM is different from that of magnesium malate.
In the absence of scientific evidence, the Panel considered that it is not possible to distinguish between the proposed substance and a salt of magnesium and malic acid. The Panel has requested scientific data to demonstrate that the substance under evaluation is different from ‘magnesium malate’, which is already included in the Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC, and the applicant was not able to provide any scientific evidence. In the absence of these data, the Panel is unable to conclude that the substance presented as DMM would be different from magnesium malate already authorised as a nutrient source.
If the DMM complex was intact, the methodology used (separation based on molecular weight) would result in this being eluted before the organic acids. The liquid chromatogram obtained showed two major peaks (corresponding to the collected fractions 3 and 5, respectively). The analysis of the fractions confirmed that malic acid was the main component in the fraction 3, but this fraction did not contain the magnesium amount that would be expected in a DMM complex, and that fumaric acid was the main component in the fraction 5 but likewise the corresponding fraction showed no magnesium that would indicate complexation. Magnesium was present at the highest concentration in the final fraction (fraction 6) and no other compounds were found in significant amount in this fraction, indicating that magnesium was not complexed to any other constituents in the solution.
So the European Food Safety Administration concludes what I have been saying all along, that most of these special "complexed" magnesium forms people are selling are fake, and are just mixtures of magnesium and the other substance; in this case malic acid. This happens a lot with magnesium glycinate as well. Many people just mix magnesium with glycine and call it a day. That EFSA conclusion also confirms it was Albion that submitted it.
Additional data provided on 08 April 2016. Submitted by Albion Laboratories, Inc.
That's what Jigsaw claims to use...